- Home
- Practice Areas
- Personal Injury Information
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyer
- What is a Personal Injury?
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Statute of Limitations
- What Makes Up a Strong Case?
- Personal Injury Damages
- Personal Injury Categories
- Vicarious Liability
- Injury Attorneys in Houston
- Houston Premises Liability
- Child Injury Cases in Houston
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Burn and Scald Injury
- Free Online Legal Advice
- Houston Personal Injury Law Firm
- Conroe Personal Injury Attorney
- Missouri City Personal Injuries
- More...
- Houston Pro Bono Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Accident Claim
- Houston PI Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Law Attorney
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Amputation Accidents in Houston
- Houston Personal Injury Legal Advice
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
- Houston Personal Injury Attorneys
- Mitigating Damages After an Injury
- Proving the Proximate Cause
- Thin Skull Rule
- Broken Bones
- Mediation in an Injury Lawsuit
- Houston Personal Injury Law
- Subrogation Reimbursement
- Best Injury Lawyer in Houston
- Clear Lake Personal Injury Lawyer
- Deer Park Personal Injury Attorney
- Galveston Personal Injury Lawyer
- Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney
- Sugar Land Personal Injury Lawyer
- Texas City Personal Injury Attorney
- Wrongful Death Information
- Houston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Statute of Limitations
- Texas Wrongful Death Law
- Texas Survival Statute
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Truck Accident Fatalities
- Plane and Aviation Fatalities
- Houston Fatal Boating Accidents
- Motorycle Accident Wrongful Death Cases
- Houston Work Related Death Cases
- Fatal Construction Accidents in Houston Texas
- Fatal Pedestrian Accidents in Houston
- Houston Elderly Wrongful Deaths
- Conroe Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Deer Park Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Galveston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Pasadena Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Sugar Land Wrongful Death Lawyer
- 18-Wheeler Truck Accidents
- Houston Trucking Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Info
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Trucking Accident Claim
- Cargo Related Trucking Accidents
- Intoxicated Truck Driver Accidents
- Unsafe Trucking Company Practices
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents in Houston
- Accidents Caused by Defective Truck Tires
- Conroe 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Houston Fatal Truck Accident Attorney
- Galveston Truck Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Dump Truck Accidents
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Lawyer
- Accidents with Construction Vehicles
- Houston Truck Crash Attorney
- Sugar Land Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Injury Lawyer
- Pasadena 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Lawyer
- Flatbed Truck Accidents
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyers
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Big Rig Accidents in Houston
- Houston Truck Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Attorney
- Conroe Truck Accident Lawyer
- Galveston 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Pasadena Truck Accident Lawyer
- Sugar Land 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Clear Lake Truck Accident Lawyer
- Deer Park Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Accident Lawsuits
- Texas City 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Car Accidents
- Houston Automobile Accident Attorney
- How the Claims Process Works
- Statute of Limitations
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Denied Car Insurance Claims
- Damages Available in a Car Accident
- Negligent Entrustment of a Vehicle
- Injury to a Child
- Rollover Accidents
- Can You Trust the Insurance Adjuster?
- Auto Accident Attorney in Houston
- Conroe Car Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Auto Accident Attorney
- How Property Damage Affects Your Personal Injury Claim
- Rear End Collision
- Head, Neck and Back Injuries
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Car Accidents Resulting in Psychological Damages
- Accidents Caused by Drivers on Their Cell Phone
- Getting a Rental Car
- We can help you get Medical Attention
- How to Handle a Car Accident Claim
- Houston Insurance Attorney
- How Uninsured and Underinsured Claims Work
- How Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Works
- How Witness Statements Affect Your Claim
- Accident Mediation Process
- How to Handle Disputed Liability
- Clear Lake Car Accident Lawyer
- Galveston Car Accident Lawyer
- Houston Accident Attorney
- Houston Accident Injury Lawyer
- Houston Car Accident Lawyer
- Pasadena Car Accident Lawyer
- Sugar Land Car Accident Lawyer
- Texas City Car Accident Lawyer
- Drunk Driving Accidents
- Houston Drunk Driver Accident Lawyer
- Dram Shop and Liquor Liability Cases in Houston
- Fatal Drunk Driving Accidents
- Galveston Drunk Driver Accidents
- Texas Drunk Driver Accident Statistics
- Conroe Drunken Driver Accidents
- Pasadena Drunk Driving Accidents
- Sugar Land Drunk Driver Accidents
- Texas City Drunk Driving Accidents
- On The Job Injuries
- On the Job Injury Attorney
- Worker's Compensation
- Non Subscriber Cases
- Injuries Caused by Machinery
- Houston Drilling Accident Injury
- Houston Mesothelioma Attorney
- Forklift Injury Cases Houston Texas
- Pasadena Work Injury Lawyer
- Slip and Fall Accidents
- Conroe Work Injury Lawyer
- Houston Lifting Injury
- More...
- Industrial Accidents
- Houston Warehouse Injury Attorneys
- Shiping and Receiving Dock Injuries
- Houston Carpal Tunnel Office Injuries
- Houston Delivery Driver Injuries
- Subscriber Claims and Workers Compensation
- Loading Dock Accidents and Waterfront Injuries
- Houston Oilfield Injuries
- Toxic Exposure and Asbestos Cases
- Galveston Work Injury Lawyer
- Sugar Land Work Injury Lawyer
- Construction Accidents
- Job Site Injury Attorneys
- Workers Compensation Cases in Houston Texas
- Houston Non Subscriber Cases
- Construction Site Hazards
- Heavy Equipment Injuries in Houston
- Electric Shock Cases in Houston Texas
- Crush Injuries on Houston Construction Sites
- Power Tools Injuries and Accidents in Houston Texas
- Houston Trench Collapse Attorney
- More...
- Trench Collapses in Houston Texas
- Houston Hazardous Chemical Exposure
- Construction Accidents Caused by Equipment Malfunction
- Scaffolding Accidents and Injuries in Houston
- Houston Road Worker Injuries
- On the Job Burn Injuries
- Houston Crane Accidents
- Fallling Injuries in Houston
- Structure Collapse Cases Houston Texas
- Maritime Injuries
- Product Defect Liability
- Prescription Drug Injury
- Medical Malpractice
- Birth Injuries
- Day Care Child Abuse
- Drowning Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Personal Injury Information
- Successes
- Meet Our Attorneys
- Information Center
- Contact Us
Houston Maritime Injury Attorney
Have You or a Loved One Been Injured in a Offshore Work-Related Accident? The Houston Maritime Lawyers of Grossman Law Offices can Help You Receive the Compensation You Deserve
- Who is Protected by the Jones Act?
- What Types of Damages Can Be Recovered?
- What Are Common Defenses to the Jones Act?
- Limitations Liability Act of 1851
- The Jones Act & Wrongful Deaths

The Jones Act was passed in 1920 as part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. It is a federal statute that speaks to maritime commerce in United States waters and serves to regulate American shipping.
The Jones Act was enacted to bolster support for the United States’ maritime industry by requiring that all items transported by water between American ports use ships that were constructed in America, owned by United States citizens, and had a crew consisting of American citizens and permanent residents. Included in the act are provisions that account for injury compensation of seamen. Houston maritime injury attorney Michael Grossman has a strong understanding of these provisions and knows how to ensure your best chance at a successful recovery.
In regards to workers that have been injured or killed while employed in the maritime industry, the Jones Act serves as a protective legal measure should they suffer an accident, even if the accident did not occur while at sea, as long as the worker was injured while in service to a vessel on navigable waters. However, the injured worker must be proven to have been a seaman and to have been working on a vessel.
In regards to the Jones Act, a worker is known as a “seaman,” the employer is known as the “ship owner,” and the ship itself is known as a “vessel.” The Jones Act failed to define “vessel,” but the courts have interpreted “vessel” to mean a number of maritime places of work, including, but not limited to, some offshore oil rigs, barges, casino boats, fishing boats, tow boats, semi-submersible rigs, passenger ships, or other similar types of floating apparatuses where work is being done. Injuries that occur to seaman while working on these types of water-going vessels are covered by the Jones Act, but so too are injuries that occur when the employee is off the vessel, performing work duties.
As long as the employee is defined as a seaman working for a maritime employer and is performing a duty related to their job, any injuries sustained while offshore would most likely be covered by the Jones Act. For instance, if a maritime worker is injured in an auto accident while traveling to a destination on company business, the Jones Act would still cover that worker’s sustained injury, regardless of the fact that the actual injury did not take place while on the water.
Who is Protected by the Jones Act?
As stated, an employee must be defined as a “seaman” in order for the Jones Act to apply to their injury accident. How is this defined? There are four aspects that must be met in order for a worker to be classified as a seaman:
- The worker’s vessel must be in navigation. This does not mean that the vessel must be moving; it simply means that the vessel is in operation, as opposed to an out-of-operation vessel or a permanently moored vessel.
- The worker must have a permanent connection in time and nature to their vessel or a group of vessels owned by one entity. Permanent does not mean continual.
- The accident does not solely dictate whether or not an employee is defined as a seaman, rather, the employee’s relationship with the vessel or group of vessels that they work on, coupled with the circumstances of the accident and the employee’s duties, are all factors that are considered when determining their status as a seaman.
- The injured seaman must have been on the vessel in order to undertake specific duties in regard to the vessel’s functioning or the vessel’s reason for being.

These conditions exist in order to differentiate seaman from land-based workers. For example, an oil company employee that visits a barge and is injured while there will not be covered by the Jones Act. However, an oil company employee that works on the barge and visits company headquarters as part of their job duties and is injured will be covered by the Jones Act. As you can likely tell, establishing the definition of a seaman and who is covered by the Jones Act can be a delicate process. In order to protect their interests, many shipping companies will specifically word their seaman’s employment contract in order to make it sound as if the worker is not a seaman by definition. By enlisting the help of Houston maritime injury attorney Michael Grossman, you can be apprised of your status and whether or not you are covered by the Jones Act.
What Types of Damages Can Be Recovered Under the Jones Act?
Damages are financial losses that an injured victim incurs as a result of their injury. In a personal injury claim, an accident victim (known in legal terms as the plaintiff) uses the court as a means of seeking compensation for their damages. Damages can take many different forms. In Jones Act cases, there are three basic benefits that are available to injured seaman:
- Maintenance
Maintenance refers to the ship owner’s obligation to pay for the victim’s expenses, like room and board, during the duration of their recovery while they are unable to continue working. This stipulation harkens back to the time when seaman lived on a ship and rarely had a permanent residence. So when a seaman suffered a maritime injury, they ship owner would have to pay to send them inland and provide them with enough compensation to pay for their room and board. In modern times, most seamen do have a permanent residence but they are still able to seek out compensation for maintenance. The standard amount for maintenance has not been updated for decades, so it currently sits at $15-$30 per day. Without the help of an experienced maritime accident lawyer who can argue for a modern-day equivalent of maintenance costs, an injured victim will likely receive less than fair compensation for their maintenance needs.
- Cure
Cure refers to the ship owner’s obligation to pay for the injured worker’s reasonable medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident. When ship owners avoid this obligation, a separate lawsuit is often necessary in order to hold the liable party accountable for their negligence, particularly when their inaction has led to a worsening of the seaman’s injuries.
- Personal Injury Damages
Damages for personal injury refers to damages that are commonly associated with basic personal injury claims, such as past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of quality of life, impairment, and other regular forms of personal injury damages.
It should be noted that maintenance and cure damages are not explicitly stated as being compensable in the Jones Act, and these are compensable damages more as a matter of case law and tradition than a specific statute. The ship owner will not typically volunteer any of these monies and you must compel them through the court to compensate you accordingly, which is where having an experienced Houston maritime accident attorney on your side will prove to be invaluable. As such, it takes a knowledgeable maritime lawyer familiar with the Jones Act to argue for the inclusion of maintenance and cure damages in your Jones Act personal injury accident case. Since these types of damages do not have to be included, a defense attorney will not simply offer to compensate you for them. They must be specifically requested and carefully calculated so that you’re fully compensated for all damages you’ve incurred.
Which Laws Apply to my Offshore Accident Case?

The answer to this question can become a bit challenging because of the numerous overlapping law and regulations that govern the maritime industry. For example, when a worker is injured while on the water, four types of law may actually apply to the accident depending on the specific circumstances of the incident: the Jones Act law, workers’ compensation law, longshore and harbor workers’ compensation law, or general maritime law. With so many legal gray areas in existence between these types of law, many of which can be advantageously used by aggressive defense attorneys, hiring a competent Houston maritime injury attorney to represent your accident claim can prove to be beneficial in your quest for proper compensation.
Many employers or their defense attorneys will attempt to disguise which type of coverage applies to certain situations. In so doing, they will attempt to steer an injured worker towards filing a workers’ compensation claim, or anything other than a Jones Act claim, since the compensation received through a Jones Act claim is often much more valuable than compensation received through any other route. They will essentially try to get you to file the wrong type of claim in order to save the company money. Without the help of a knowledgeable Jones Act attorney in Houston, you may be settling for a compensation package that is far less than what could be obtained through the Jones Act.
What Are Common Defenses to the Jones Act?
Because of the unique nature of Jones Act personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits, specialist defense attorneys will likely be working the case with the sole purpose of denying your claim or paying you as little as possible. They will often employ methods that have proven to be effective in defending their clients from having to pay out large sums of compensation to an injured plaintiff. In all of these defensive methods, a defense attorney’s main goal is to prove that their client had little to no liability for the accident that occurred. As such, they will attempt to pin as much blame as possible on the injured victim. If even a portion of liability can be placed onto the victim, the defense attorney’s client could stand to save a sizable sum of money. In order to prevent such an occurrence from happening, it’s important to have an experienced Houston maritime injury attorney on your side that can work just as aggressively on your behalf so that you can stand to receive full and fair compensation.
A Jones Act defense attorney can accuse the injured victim of any or or all of the following acts in order to prove the victim’s own liability for the accident:
- Willful acts of seaman
- Willful disobedience of the law, a.k.a willful misconduct
- Gross inebriation or drunkenness
- Fighting
- Attempted suicide
- Willful concealment of a pre-existing condition, a.k.a. the McCorpen Defense
The McCorpen Defense refers to a Supreme Court case and is used to determine whether or not an injured worker’s concealment of their pre-existing condition was purposeful, i.e. willful, or just a failure to disclose the condition. In this instance, the defense must be able to prove that the injury that was not disclosed prior to the worker’s hiring would have had an effect on the company’s decision to hire that worker. If they can do so, the shipping company can effectively deny your claim or significantly reduce its value. Naturally, these are defenses that are quite commonly used. Even if they don’t sound applicable to your particular injury, you can anticipate having one or more of the above defense strategies used against you. Defense attorneys do not simply accept liability in the vast majority of cases.
Furthermore, an employer can claim that they were not aware of the existence of a dangerous condition that caused an accident. As an example, if deck hands cleared water off of the deck of a ship, thereby preventing a slipping hazard, only to have water again splash onto the deck causing someone to injure themselves in a fall, the defense will likely claim that there was not enough time to remedy the situation. However, the law states that employers must rectify unsafe situations before a seaman is hurt. Since the plaintiff in a Jones Act personal injury case bears the burden of proof, their legal representation must be able to show that the defendant was negligent is some fashion and was therefore liable for the accident. In contrast to workers’ compensation claims, where just being injured on the job is often enough to receive some form of compensation, a worker injured that is covered by the Jones Act must be able to prove the defendant’s negligent actions were the proximate cause of their injury in order to receive any compensation.
What is the Limitations Liability Act of 1851?
Although this particular act is old and was made law before insurance policies were common, it still applies to instances of Jones Act accident cases. The Limitations Liability Act of 1851 sets caps, or limitations, on the amount that a vessel owner is liable for in the event of an accident. In other words, as a result of this act, a vessel owner does not have to fear the risk of unlimited liability for a catastrophic accident. As a result, the value of a claim is capped at the owner’s or shareholder’s percentage stake in the value of the vessel and cargo at the end of the voyage.
The defendant must put an amount equal to their share of the final value of their vessel into a trust. If a verdict in the case deems that the defendant owes the plaintiff more than what is withheld in the trust, then the trust is increased at an amount capped at $420 per gross ton. As a result, many defendants will attempt to disguise the true worth of their vessel and cargo, or their percentage stake in the vessel and cargo, in order to have less financial exposure. It often requires the help of an experienced Houston maritime attorney to be able to establish whether or not the amount put into the trust is fair in regards to the accident that occurred.
Furthermore, for this limitations act to be effective, a defendant must file a limitation action within six months of receiving notice that a Jones Act claim has been filed against them. If the plaintiff has filed suit, the defendant must file the limitation action in the court where the plaintiff has filed the lawsuit. If the plaintiff has yet to file a lawsuit, the defendant may file the limitation action in the court where the vessel is docked. If the vessel is not docked, the limitation action can be filed in any district.
Does the Jones Act Cover Wrongful Death?
There are actually four different sets of laws that can apply to a wrongful death that occurs at sea, depending on the specifics of the accident and the relationship of the plaintiff to the responsible party. These laws are the Jones Act, State law (e.g. workers’ comp), the Death on the High Seas Act, and general maritime law.

When a seaman dies while working for a vessel, the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act, where the death occurs at over 3 nautical miles from the shore, can apply. If an employee was killed while working for an employer covered by workers’ compensation insurance, a Houston wrongful death claim can be brought if the employer can be shown to have been grossly negligent. If an outside party or a faulty mechanical product caused the accident or contributed to the accident, legal action can be pursued against the negligent party or parties under general maritime law. In some instances, all of these laws could apply to the same maritime wrongful death case. In many wrongful deaths that occur, multiple parties will likely be involved that all hold some degree of liability for the accident resulting in the loss of life. As such, each party should be identified and held accountable for their negligent behavior so that they aggrieved family can be compensated for their loss.
Our firm begins every Houston maritime injury case with an investigation that helps us identify ALL responsible parties for a work-related fatality or injury. While most law firms simply wait for OSHA to complete an investigation and then file lawsuits accordingly, our firm investigates each case independently in order to properly ascertain the liability of all parties. This has a direct impact on the amount of compensation that our clients receive and, in our opinion, is the only way to properly prosecute an important case.
Houston Maritime Injury Lawyer Michael Grossman Can Help You
There are many essential questions that must be properly answered when an employee is injured or killed while working in the maritime industry. First, if compensation is being sought through the Jones Act, the injured or killed worker must be established as a seaman, and must be shown to have been working for a vessel when the accident occurred. Secondly, the correct type of law must be applied in order for the injured worker or bereaved family to receive full and fair compensation for their injury or loss. Personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits brought against a negligent party or company under the Jones Act can prove to be quite complex to those unfamiliar with the many rules, regulations, statutes, and laws that surround such types of accident cases. Houston maritime accident lawyer Michael Grossman and his team at Grossman Law Offices can assist you in getting the compensation you deserve through the Jones Act so that you can begin the recovery process and get back on your feet. Contact us at 1-855-392-0000 (toll free) for a free consultation to discuss the details of your accident or your loved one’s maritime accident.
Helpful Information
The laws that dictate the outcome of maritime accidents can be a bit complex at times. Our Houston Texas maritime injury attorneys believe that it is crucial for our clients’ questions to be answered. As such, the informational articles below were written to address virtually any questions you may have regarding your maritime accident case.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff's employer and the general contractor.
A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff's employer and the general contractor.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$20,465.00
$20,465.00
$125,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Total Recovery:
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,135.00
$2,135.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$341.00
$341.00
$1,010,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Hand Lacerations)
A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action.
A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action.
Total Recovery:
$1,010,000.00
$1,010,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,300.00
$333,300.00
Litigation Expenses:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$75,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$350.00
$350.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$700,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Fractured Pelvis, Other Internal Injuries)
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
Total Recovery:
$700,000.00
$700,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$175,000.00
$175,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,084.00
$1,084.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential








